12/07/12: U.S. Supreme Court taking Prop. 8 is about our republic

U.S. Supreme Court Taking Prop. 8 Is About Our RepublicThomasson: "This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic."

Randy Thomasson available for TV from Skype studio

Sacramento, California -- A leading man-woman marriage organization in California is very happy that the United States Supreme Court has announced it will review Proposition 8, and is urging the nation's high court to overturn the unconstitutional, biased opinions of California judicial activists Stephen Reinhardt and Vaughn Walker.

"The announcement from the Supreme Court is good news for everyone who knows, deep in their hearts, that children do best with a married father and mother under the same roof," said Randy Thomasson, a longtime advocate of natural marriage and president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. "For the stability and health of our society, children need to see real marriages as their role model, not counterfeit 'marriages,' but true marriages between a man and a woman."

"This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic," Thomasson said. "We're relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees each state 'a republican form of government' -- a government under the written law, not government run by the unconstitutional prejudices of some judges. Without question, the Supreme Court should reserve marriage licenses exclusively for one man and one woman, not only for the sake of children and families, but for the sake of our republic."

"The California Constitution reserving marriage licenses for a man and a woman, as God created it, does not contradict anything in the text or history of the U.S. Constitution," Thomasson said. He offered four constitutional reasons why the Supreme Court should uphold Proposition 8, approved by California voters in 2008:

1. Marriage licenses are not in the United States Constitution, so this case never should have gotten into federal court in the first place.

2. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to California and every other state "a republican form of government" -- meaning 1) no monarchy and 2) no lawless mob rule, but a government of written laws representing the will of the people, who are sovereign. The California Constitution represents the people's will on marriage and the United States Supreme Court should affirm that. (See footnote recording James Madison's definition of republican government as "a republican constitution and its existing laws" )

3. The 10th Amendment says powers that don't belong to the federal government, or what the Constitution doesn't prohibit among the states, are state powers. Therefore, marriage is under the states' jurisdiction.

4. The 14th Amendment is one of three post-Civil War amendments and was about race -- giving black former slaves the same legal rights of white freemen -- not about marriage. The Amendment applied to the states what was already a federal right enshrined in the 5th Amendment -- that no one should be killed (deprived of life), imprisoned or enslaved (deprived of liberty), or deprived of their property without a court order (due process of law). Further, the Equal Protection Clause in no way requires the recognition of same-sex "marriages" because homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual couples. They cannot have a conjugal union that produces children, and one of the primary purposes of marriage is to bind together fathers and mothers for the benefit of the children they bring into the world.

The Constitution of the United States:

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

-- end --

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.